Dable v Peisley [2009] NSWSC 772

Dable v Peisley [2009] NSWSC 772

The plaintiffs failed because, although the deceased made repeated assurances that he would leave his estate to one or more members of the Dable family, those assurances did not objectively demonstrate an intention to enter into binding legal relations and therefore no testamentary contract existed. The estoppel claim also failed because the assurances were not shown to have been understood as irrevocable, the plaintiffs' conduct was more likely motivated by friendship and hope or expectation that the deceased would not change his will, and the financial and non-financial detriment proved was insufficient to make it unconscionable for the estate to depart from the assurances.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 August 2009
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings Concerning Alleged Testamentary Contract and Proprietary Estoppel by Encouragement Against Executors of a Deceased Estate / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Plaintiffs' claims dismissed.
Legal Topics
['offer and Acceptance' 'intention to Create Legal Relations' 'consideration' 'unilateral Contract' 'testamentary Contract' 'part Performance' 'proprietary Estoppel by Encouragement' 'detrimental Reliance' 'constructive Trust' 'wills and Deceased Estates']
['contracts' 'equity' 'estates and Succession'] ['offer and Acceptance' 'intention to Create Legal Relations' 'consideration' 'unilateral Contract' 'testamentary Contract' 'part Performance' 'proprietary Estoppel by Encouragement' 'detrimental Reliance' 'constructive Trust' 'wills and Deceased Estates']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Equity Proceedings Concerning Alleged Testamentary Contract and Proprietary Estoppel by Encouragement Against Executors of a Deceased Estate / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the deceased entered into a binding contract with one or more of the Dables to leave his estate to them in exchange for continuing to provide companionship, hospitality and personal services.' 'Whether any such contract was enforceable notwithstanding lack of writing, including by part performance or because reliance on the lack of writing would be unconscionable or fraudulent.' "Whether the deceased's executors were estopped from denying that the deceased had contracted to leave, or would leave, the whole of his estate to the Dables." "Whether the Dables relied on the deceased's assurances to their detriment and whether any detriment was sufficient to make it unconscionable for the deceased or his estate to depart from the assurances." 'If an estoppel were established, what relief would be proportionate.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs failed because, although the deceased made repeated assurances that he would leave his estate to one or more members of the Dable family, those assurances did not objectively demonstrate an intention to enter into binding legal relations and therefore no testamentary contract existed. The estoppel claim also failed because the assurances were not shown to have been understood as irrevocable, the plaintiffs' conduct was more likely motivated by friendship and hope or expectation that the deceased would not change his will, and the financial and non-financial detriment proved was insufficient to make it unconscionable for the estate to depart from the assurances.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' claims dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Proceedings dismissed with costs.']